Riopel v. City of Worcester
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Contract upon an account annexed for pay as a police officer, as stated in the opinion. Writ dated April 17, 1911. In the Superior Court the case was heard upon an agreed statement of facts by Hall, J., who found for the defendant. From a judgment entered in accordance with this finding, the plaintiff appealed. The case was submitted on briefs.
1Opinion of the CourtDeCourcy, J.
The plaintiff was regularly appointed a reserve member of the police department of Worcester on December 1, 1905, and served under that appointment until he left the police service February 4, 1911. He received his pay weekly and receipted upon the regular pay roll sheet for reserve policemen. During most of the time between December 1, 1906, and October 29, 1908, he was paid twenty-five cents a day less than were the regular patrolmen, whose pay was fixed by an order of the city council dated December 14, 1896; and he now seeks to recover this difference, amounting in all to $166.25. To…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Cook v. City of SpringfieldMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1903
- Phelon v. Inhabitants of GranvilleMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1886
- Brophy v. MarbleMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1875
- Libbey v. City of LawrenceMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1880
3Cited by10 opinions
- Bell v. Treasurer of CambridgeMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1941
- McHenry v. City of LawrenceMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1936
- Forbes v. City of WoburnMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1940
- Hartley v. Inhabitants of GranvilleMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1913
- Driscoll v. City of MedfordMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1952
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.